*i bred pigeons/fish/weed,using the mendelism and other teqniqu*

UOG methinks its all that weed that has you so confused :)

Quit whilst you are well behind, for Gee Suss is running
intellectual rings around you.

But then with all that weed, you would hardly notice!

suck...egggs...yabby egggs...lol
ya genious...lol...

retard..

Australia has a large and unique..crayfish fauna including the largest and smallest species in the world...Crayfish,..of all of the freshwater invertebrates of inland Australia,..

Crayfish..are known by many common names..depending on the area they are found...In New South Wales..and Victoria they are called yabbies, in Western Australia the Koonac,..Gigly and the Marron,..while Queensland has the Redclaw.

What are Crayfish?

Crayfish belong..to a group of animals..called Crustaceans..and are part of the phylum Arthropoda.

All Arthropods have a hardened outer shell,..called cuticle..(made from calcium carbonate)..that acts as a skeleton.

Crustaceans are distinguished from the other arthropods by their two pair of antennae - an outer pair called antennae, and an inner pair called antennules

All freshwater crayfish..in Australia..belong to the Family Parastacidae.

Australia's crayfish fauna are divided...**into nine genera**..(or groups of species)..which include over 100 species.

The three..most common and widespread..*genera*...

LOL..are Cherax,..Euastacus and Astacopsis.

The Yabby
The yabby..(Cherax destructor)..has the largest range of all Australian crayfish.

Other Crayfish
The second most widely distributed *genus*...LOL..is Euastacus.

This genus...LOL..occurs from north Queensland throughout eastern and southern New South Wales, most of Victoria and southern South Australia.

The third *genus*...lol..

Astacopsis is found only in Tasmania and includes Astacopsis gouldi or the Giant Tasmanian Crayfish and is not only the largest crayfish in the world but is also believed to be the largest freshwater crustacean.

The remaining genera.....LOL....contain small species which have relatively restricted distributions.

An interesting genus....LOL....found only in Queensland is Tenuibranchiurus.

This genus...LOL...includes the world's smallest crayfish, Tenuibranchiurus glypticus, which does not exceed 30 mm in length.

http://australianmuseum.net.au/Crayfish

Hello OUG. Do you smoke pot? You know that stuff can make you paranoid, or bring on schizophrenia, be careful!

Really this is a waste of time discussing with you, you keep asking about what was the first life, which has nothing to do with evolution. I know christians that believe in evolution, there's a massive amount of evidence for it.

You yourself gave evidence as to why there is no 'genus' to 'genus' evolution. It's ridiculous you asking about, evolution happens of millions of years, the differences resulting are massive, indeed, your link in your post to Cryptosporidium has since the paper you linked too, in 1980, has 13 species identified.

http://cmr.asm.org/cgi/content/full/17/1/72

You state that there is evolution below the genus level, in that species have different traits. We have witnessed and I have provided evidence of speciation events, where another 'form' is created, with different traits (I gave a link with whole lists of them)

You now provide a list of creature placed into a taxonomic tree via DNA and genetics, totally ignoring what evolution states, as tho it's some BIG MYSTERY, that there's not every single version of creature between them all.

Evolution shows that traits will be passed on and passed on, creatures diverging, the situations of the divergence defining by natural selection the form that we see after hundred of millions of years.

The DNA evidence, the morphological evidence, etc etc all combines into MASSIVE evidence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent

Where's yours OUG?

Where's your evidence of a creator? You keep claiming it, I've explained massive amounts of evidence because you asked, and whined about it saying it was needed or else it's false.

Where's your evidence? Lets compare

Gee Suss, i agree with your posts, but I believe it is a waste of time arguing with OUG!

"Where's your evidence of a creator?"

I too have previously asked this question, and the answer is always a jumbled reply consisting mainly of mad websites.
His answer to me claimed there was a creator because...there just IS!

I too would rather put my faith in scientific proof of evolution than of a maybe, somehow, somewhere, type of being that just is.

suss-pect you fell right into it..[with ya link...lol]...see i quoted a scientist...you rebutted one of your own..but then put up a link...lol

quote from link..<<With the establishment of a framework for naming Cryptosporidium species..and the availability of new taxonomic tools, there should be less confusion associated with the taxonomy...of the genus Cryptosporidium>>.any confusion between genus/species,belongs to science...not me

[my point is genus/species..your's..=all species]...pure insanity.

but you did it agaIN WITH YA NEXT LINK...lol

<<<The probable>>>lol...<<course of development of horses from Hyracotherium...[genus]..to Equus[genus]..(the modern horse)..>>

<<involved at least 12 genera>>>...lol

<<and several hundred species>>>...lol

so lets egsamin the genera...of the horse
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_horse

<<<the actual evolutionary progression..from Hyracotherium to Equus..has been discovered..to be much more complex and multi-branched..than was initially supposed.

It was first recognized..by George Gaylord Simpson in 1951[6]..that the modern horse was not the "goal"..of the entire lineage of equids,..

<<it is simply...the only..*genus*..of the many horse lineages..that has happened to survive>>

the horse..lol..tree..begins with..genus<<Hyracotherium...to Equus..>>[genus]...lol
http://www.biblicalcreation.org.uk/scientific_issues/bcs146.html

<<Popular presentations usually suggest a simple,..gradual,..and progressive straight-line of evolution from Hyracotherium to Equus that..is not..supported by the actual fossil data...Evolutionary scientists readily acknowledge that this is the case>>

get educated you dolts

http://talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/eohippus_equus.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/horse_evol.html

http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=A0oGkx.AVehK_SMBuuul87UF?p=genus+tree+Hyracotherium+to+Equus+&fr=sfp&fr2=&iscqry=

anyhow please advize me..what genus Hyracotherium came from..then the genus..it came from...all the way down ya tree...to that first life..

WHAT WAS..ITS..GENUS..!

recall the title of ya link
<<<Evidence_of_common_descent>>

well what was the genus..

of this...lol..common ancestor...
where is the evidence lol...
of common decent...from which first/genus?

http://www.geol.umd.edu/~tholtz/G102/102phyl.htm

In traditional Linnean taxonomy,..there is a set of official ranks..
(from smallest to largest,..species,..genus, family,..orde..,..class,..phylum)

(later workers added additional intermediate ranks,..such as tribes,..subfamilies,.superfamilies,..subphyla,..etc.);

The primary unit..is the species:
Refers to a.."specific"..kind of organism
Definition of a "species"..varies from biologist to biologist;
some definitions..("naturally occurring interbreeding populations")..cannot be tested for fossils!

More about species below
Each species..has a type specimen..accessioned in an appropriate institution..
(museum,..zoological or botanical garden, or other such collection);
Whoever describes the type specimen..of a new species..
has the right to name that new species

..(following the rules below);
The next higher unit,..the genus..(pl. genera)..
is composed of one or more species

Genus/genera..Refers to a more.."generic" category..than species

Definition of a.."genus"..is problematic as well,
since it is composed of one or more "species";

Each genus has a type species..
all other species are assigned..to the genus
based on their similarity to the type species;

Linnean taxonomy has its own special set of grammatical rules..
it apears athiests have their..selective ignorance..
[aversion to egsamin plain facts

here is a close up...of the absent ambio-genus...[that first one
you..[and they cant name...lol
http://www.plosone.org/article/showImageLarge.action?uri=info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0003357.g002

[noting all them names on the outside...but no root/nor branches named spreading outwards
[nor name in the middle...

thus its pap..its pure speculation..you and your delusional tree...lol
science bah...your acting like children...growup